UTILITARIANISM
But humanist
Utilitarianism is the moral theory that an action is
morally right if it serves the greatest happiness for
the greatest number of people.
Utilitarianism believes that the sole factor in
determining an action’s morality is the balance of
social good versus social evil.
Appeals to moral intuitions, social traditions, or
God’s wishes are not relevant.
HEDONISTIC UTILITARIANISM
by: JEREMY BENTHAM and JOHN MILL
Hedonism involves pleasure seeking, and
hedonistic utilitarians argue that morality is
determined according to how much pleasure or
pain is produced from a course of action.
THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF
UTILITARIANISM
Utilitarianism is not the invention of any single
philosopher, and the general theory is as old as an
ancient Greece. The Greek philosopher Epicarus
(341-270 BCE) gives a clear statement of the role
of pleasure in moral judgements;
We affirm that pleasure is the beginning and end of
the good life. We recognize pleasure as the first
good, being natural to us, and it is from pleasure
that we begin every choice and avoidance. It is also
to pleasure that we return, using it as the standard
by which we judge every good.
Pleasure is clearly important motivator in our lives,
and most moral philosophers find at least some
place for pleasure within their theories. What is
distinct about Epicarus’s theory of hedonism
though, is that the gaining of pleasure and the
avoidance of pain is the single standard by which
we determine happiness and thereby judge our
actions. Ultimately, Epicarus’s theory did not take
hold, and in the centuries following Epicarus’s,
moral philosophers emphasized the roles of virtue,
natural law, and the will of God.
philosophers of the renaissance revised Epicarus’s
theory, and by the eighteenth century, several
philosophers were defending the pleasure criterion
of morality.
EIGHTEENTH CENTURY CONTRIBUTIONS
Scotch-Irish philosopher Francis Hutcheson (1694-
1747) offered this systematic formula linking
morality with happiness:
That action is best, which procures the greatest
happiness for the greatest numbers; and that worst,
which, in like manner, occasions misery.
Here and in his other ethical writings, we find most
of the key elements of utilitarianism. First, in
Hutcheson’s words, we are to compute the
consequences of our actions. Second, Hutcheson
identifies the standard of moral evaluation as the
greatest amount of happiness or pleasure that
results for all people affected. Third, he provides
details about the range of consequences that
count; long term, short term, direct, and indirect
consequences all enter into the computation.
Finally, he provides details about what counts as
happiness or pleasure: Higher intellectual
pleasures and lower bodily pleasures are relevant,
but with varying degrees of intensity and duration.
Influenced by Hutcheson, David Hume (1711-1776)
further developed this theory, Hume argues that,
when we survey what people commonly consider to
be moral conduct, we must conclude that morally
right actions are those that produce useful or
immediately pleasing consequences for ourselves
or others. Hume uses the term utility in reference to
the useful consequences, and It is Hume’s
expression that later commentators coined the term
utilitarianism. Two features are unique to Hume’s
theory. First, as criteria of moral evolution, the
useful longer-term consequences of actions are as
important as the immediately pleasing
consequences of actions. Sexual chastity, for
example, is morally proper primarily because it has
useful long-term consequences in holding together
the family unit. The second unique feature of
Hume’s theory is that some actions are useful only
when followed as a rule. Again, with sexual
chastity, isolated instances of sexual fidelity will not
have the consequence of holding together family
units. Hume believes that, to have useful
consequences, chastity needs to be followed as a
rule, even by single women who are past
childbearing age. In Hume’s words:
A single act of justice or chastity, considered in
itself, may often be contrary to the public good; and
it is only the occurrence of mankind, in general
scheme or system of action, which is
advantageous.
Hume’s reasoning here is the foundation of what
was later called rule-utilitarianism, that is, morality
involves examining the pleasurable and painful
consequences of the moral rules that we adopt. By
the end of the eighteenth century, dozens of
prominent moral theorists, influenced by Hume’s
theory of utility, proposed similar views. The most
important of these theorists was British philosopher
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), who acknowledged
Hume as his immediate source of inspiration.
BENTHAMS UTILITARIAN CALCULUS
Bentham presents his theory of utility in his
introduction to the Principles of Morals and
Legislation, which he wrote as a kind of moral
guidebook for legislators as they make public
policy. Although the bulk of this work focuses on
issues of criminal conduct, the opening chapters
systematically describe how utility is the ultimate
moral standard for all actions. Bentham states his
principle of utility here:
By the principle of utility is meant that principle
which approves or disapproves of every action
whatsoever, according to the tendency which it
appears to have to augment or diminish the
happiness of the party whose interest is in
question: or, what is the same thing in other words,
to promote or to oppose that happiness. I say of
every action whatsoever; and therefore not only of
every action of a private individual, but of every
measure of government.
TWO FEATURES OF BENTHAM’S THEORY
First, Bentham offers a bare-bones moral theory
consisting of only one factor: the pleasing or painful
consequences of action.
The second and most important feature of
Bentham’s theory is his method for precisely
quantifying pleasures and pains, better known as
the utilitarian calculus.
1. Intensity
2. Duration
3. Certainty
4. Remoteness
5. Fecundity
6. Purity
7. Extent
MIL’S UTILITARIANISM
Bentham was John Stuart Mil’s godfather and
teacher, and the young Mill was strongly influenced
by his mentor’s account of utilitarianism. In early
adulthood, Mill suffered an emotional breakdown,
which he attributed to his heavily analytic
education. When Bentham died shortly thereafter,
Mill felt free to re evaluate the ideas of his
upbringing. Mill’s writings show a growing
disenchantment with Bentham’s overly technical
utilitarian calculus.
RULE-UTILITARIANISM
The second feature of Mill’s theory that is distinct
from Bentham’s concerns the place of moral rules
in moral decision making. Bentham is what
scholars today call an act-utilitarian, whereas Mill is
a rule-utilitarian. The two approaches may be
defined this way:
Act-utilitarianism: morality involves examining the
pleasurable and painful consequences of our
individual actions.
Rule-utilitarianism: morality involves examining the
pleasurable and painful consequences of the moral
rules that we adopt.
Act-utilitarianism involves a two-tiered system of
moral evaluation:
- Selecting a particular action, and
- Evaluating that action by appealing to the
criterion of general happiness.
Rule-utilitarianism, though, involves an intermediary
step and so is a three-tiered system of moral
evaluation:
- Selecting a particular action.
- Evaluating that action by appealing to moral
rules, and
- Evaluating moral rules by appealing to the
criterion of general happiness.
To summarize, these are the main points of Mill’s
utilitarianism:
General happiness is the sole criterion of morality,
and “happiness” is defines as pleasure.
Higher intellectual pleasures are more valuable
than lower bodily pleasures.
We cannot quantifiably calculate which rules
produce the greatest pleasure, although we can
objectively determine whether one pleasure is
higher than another.
We appeal to the principle of greatest happiness
only when evaluating rules of conduct, and not
individual actions.
CRITICISMS OF UTILITARIANISM
GISBORNE’S CRITICISM: WE CANNOT KNOW
ALL OF THE CONSEQUENCES
One of the first criticisms of the utilitarian theory
was presented by English clergyman Thomas
Gisborne (1758-1846). According to Gisborne, we
are incapable of knowing all of the consequences
of our actions. As we attempt to hunt down the
various consequences, we will never be in a
position to discover all of the relevant effects and
form o conclusion about the overall happiness or
unhappiness that results. He offers a picturesque
analogy for this point:
As well might a fisherman infer, that his line, which
has reached the bottom of the creek in which he
exercises his trade, is therefore capable of
fathoming the depths of the Atlantic. He, who has
had sufficient humility to be convinced… how few
are the consequences which he can foresee,
compared with those which are wrapped in
obscurity, will be the most ready to confess his
ignorance of the universal effects of his actions.
BRADLEY’S CRITICISM: UTILITARIANISM
CONFLICTS WITH ORDINARY MORAL
JUDGEMENTS
A second criticism of utilitarianism, presented by
British philosopher F. H. Bradley (1846-1942), is
that utilitarian moral judgements often conflict with
our ordinary conceptions of moral obligation. For
example, it is theoretically possible that you
cheating on your spouse will maximize general
happiness. It may make you and your lover happy,
and as long as you keep it a secret, your spouse
will not be unhappy. But even in this situation our
ordinary moral judgement is that adultery is wrong:
Let us take the precept, do not commit adultery.
How are we to prove that no possible adultery can
increase the overplus of pleasurable feeling? To
put the whole matter in to words; the precepts of
Hedonism are only rules, and rules may always
have exceptions: they are not, and, so far as I see.
They cannot be made out to be laws.
According to Bradley, there are morally proper
behaviors that “we should choose even if no
pleasure came from them,” such as being faithful to
one’s spouse. Thus, utilitarianism fails as guideline
of proper conduct.
GROTE’S CRITICISM: UTILITARIANISM ONLY
PERPETUATES THE STATUS QUO
Suppose we wanted to determine whether an
action like the execution of Karla Faye Tucker is
morally permissible. According to utilitarianism, we
 ALBEE’S
find this out by looking at how much pleasure and
pain result from an actually putting people to death.
This involves an experiential inspection of the
various consequences- an approach that, in
essence, grounds morality in our factual
observations. In his posthumously published an

CRITICIS
isolated village described above, moral visionaries
seeking to reform the status quo would only be
troublemakers who would risk disrupting the
efficient traditions of that past. In spite of their good
intention, their efforts at reform might produce more
unhappiness than happiness. Again, in this village

M:
Grote is correct: utilitarianism has no room for the
moral visionary. However, when we turn to
societies that are ever-changing with constant
social clashes, there is an important role for
utilitarian moral visionaries.

ALBEE’S CRITICISM: HIGHER PLEASURES ARE

INCONSISTENT WITH HEDONISM

A final criticism focuses specifically on Mill’s version

HIGHER
of utilitarianism. We saw that the most distinctive

PLEASUR
feature of his theory is that happiness consists of
both higher and lower pleasures, and that higher
pleasures are qualitatively superior to lower ones.
The problem is that Mill appears to offer two
separate standards of general happiness. (1)

ES ARE
pleasure and (2) dignity. If we see pleasure as the
sole criterion, then we must deemphasize dignity; if
we see dignity as the principal criterion, then we
must deemphasize pleasure. American philosopher
Ernest Albee concisely states the central issue
here:

The inconsistency, in truth, may be expressed in a

word: if all good things are in good proportion as
they bring pleasure to oneself or others, one cannot
add to his statement that pleasure itself, the
INCONSI
STENT
assumed criterion, is more or less desirable in
terms of something else (ex: human dignity) which
is not pleasure.

The problem here is a serious one, and it appears

that Mill simply cannot hold up both pleasure and
dignity as the principal standard of happiness.